DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

 HEADQUARTERS

 8725 JOHN J. KINGMAN ROAD

 FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 22060-6221

August 5, 2015

MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION

SUBJECT: Defense Logistics Management Standards (DLMS) Supply Process Review Committee 

(PRC) Meeting 15-02, Focused on Materiel Receipt Acknowledgement (MRA), June 24, 2015

The attached minutes of the DLMS Supply PRC Meeting 15-02 are forwarded for your 

information and action as appropriate.

The Defense Logistics Management Standards Office points of contact are Ms. Ellen 

Hilert, (703) 767-0676, DSN 427-0676; or email ellen.hilert@dla.mil, Ms. Mary Jane Johnson, 

(703) 767-0677; or email mary.jane.johnson@dla.mil, Ms. Heidi Daverede, (703) 767-5111 or 

email heidi.daverede@dla.mil.

DONALD C. PIPP

Director

Defense Logistics Management 

Standards Office

Attachment

As stated

DISTRIBUTION:

ODASD (SCI)

ODASD DPAP (PDI)

Supply PRC

Attendees
1

 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

 HEADQUARTERS

 8725 JOHN J. KINGMAN ROAD

 FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 22060-6221

August 5, 2015

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Defense Logistics Management Standards (DLMS) Supply Process Review Committee 

(PRC) Meeting 15-02, Focused on Materiel Receipt Acknowledgement (MRA), June 24, 

2015

Purpose: The Defense Logistics Management Standards Office (DLMSO) hosted the subject 

meeting at DLA Headquarters and via Defense Collaboration Service (DCS) for remote 

participants. A list of attendees, the meeting agenda, and briefing materials are available on the 

Supply PRC webpage: www.dla.mil/j-6/dlmso/Programs/Committees/Supply/supplyPRC.asp. 

Meeting related material is hyperlinked to each of the topics in the meeting agenda file.

Brief Summary of Discussion: Ms. Mary Jane Johnson (Supply PRC Co-Chair/DOD 

MILSTRAP Administrator), Ms. Ellen Hilert (Supply PRC Co-Chair/DOD MILSTRIP 

Administrator), and Ms. Heidi Daverede (Supply PRC Co-Chair/DOD MILSTRIP Alternate) 

facilitated discussion. The Action Item Tracker contains the final approved action items for 

Supply PRC Meeting 15-2 and the current status of action items for Supply PRC (MRA Focus) 

Meeting 13-3. The Supply PRC 15-2 action items start at Action Item 22 on the tracker. The 

most recent version of the Action Item Tracker will be posted to the Supply PRC webpage. 

Action item due dates are identified in the Action Item Tracker. During the review of open 

action items, the Components were requested to provide status of all open action items from 

Supply PRC 13-03 by July 15, 2015. See Action Items 1 - 21.

All new action items from Supply PRC 15-02 are due by September 1, 2015 unless otherwise 

indicated. See Action Items 22-41.

Review of Meeting Topics:

a. Agenda Topic 1 - Open Action Items from Supply PRC Meeting 13-03.

Components were requested to provide status of all open action items from Supply PRC

Meeting 13-03 by July 15, 2015 as these items are almost two years old.

(1) SPRC 13-03, Action Item 6. DLA presented a briefing during the SPRC 15-2 

update on processes with known MRA Gaps which DLA is working to close (gaps initially 

addressed at Supply PRC Meeting 13-3, include, but not limited to, DLA Maintenance Repair 

and Operations (MRO) and DLA Industrial Prime Vendor (IPV)).
2

(2) SPRC 13-03, Action Item 7. Navy identified a new MRA gap. When an out-ofscope (external to Navy ERP) customer orders a DLA-managed item (9 COG) that is sourced 

from Navy assets (via Real-time Reutilization Asset Management (RRAM), Naval Air Station 

(NAS) or co-located DLA distribution center), Defense Automatic Addressing System (DAAS) 

logic cannot determine which activity issued the materiel; and; therefore, sends the MRA to 

DLA (source of supply (SoS)), which did not issue the material. When this occurs, the shipping 

activity does not have a record of the MRA and will continue to send follow-up transactions. 

Next step is to consult R-Supply and DAAS subject matter experts to assess the possibility of 

removing the DAAS logic.) See Action Item 22.

(3) SPRC 13-03, Action Item 8. The Navy provided input that the Navy Single 

Supply Baseline initiative is discontinued and replaced with the Naval Operational Supply 

System (NOSS), which is a component of Navy Operational Business Logistics Enterprise 

(NOBLE) and will fix the known MRA gaps by including the capability to release MRA actions 

automatically. Planned implementation by FY20. This Action Item is closed but a new action 

item is opened to address whether the New MRA Gap identified in Action Item 7 and the 

existing issue identified in the new Action Item 23 are included in the NOSS solution. 

See Action Item 22. 

(4) SPRC 13-03, Action Item 9. The Navy provided input that the Routing Identifier 

Code (RIC) XZZ is not a pseudo RIC but is a pseudo SoS in the Federal Logistics Information

System (FLIS) per DoD 4100.39-M. DLMSO agrees with the DoD 4100.39-M discussion of a 

the RIC XZZ being used as a pseudo SoS, but did not see where this was relevant to the action 

item as addressed in the Supply PRC 13-03 meeting notes. The Supply PRC 13-03 meeting 

notes identified this was an issue related to an R-Supply afloat system not putting the correct 

RIC-To in their MRA transactions. The system was picking up the depot RIC versus the 

inventory control point (ICP) RIC. Navy indicated they will reevaluate the response to this 

action item after reviewing the discussion from Supply PRC 13-03. Action Item 9 is closed and 

a new action item opened for the additional review. See Action Item 23.

(5) SPRC 13-03, Action Item 10. The Navy noted a system change request was in 

the works to remove the “No MRA Required” policy programmed into their enterprise resource 

planning (ERP) system. The Navy agreed to provide an updated defect number and HEAT 

tracking number used to document this change and an estimated implementation date. 

See Action Item 24.

(6) SPRC 13-03, Action Item 11. The Army confirmed that the follow-up for a 

delinquent MRA was not being sent from their Logistics Modernization Program (LMP). Army

will provide the system change request number and the implementation status. Action item 11 

remains open to provide the response regarding remaining MRA gaps. See Action Item 25. 

(7) SPRC 13-03, Action Item 12. Approved DLMS Change (ADC) 247 

transportation control number (TCN) discussion – no update from Army on implementation of 

ADC 247. ADC 247 adds the TCN for the shipment unit TCN from the shipment status to the 

DLMS 527 MRA and receipt transactions.

(8) SPRC 13-03, Action Item 13. Navy continues to evaluate this action item for 

implementation of ADC 247, which adds the TCN to the MRA and receipt. The Navy raised a 

question regarding whether inclusion of the document number suffix (if provided) is required 
3

when sending the MRA (DLMS 527R, 1/BR02/020, TH, legacy DIC DRA). Ms. Johnson 

clarified that the TCN and suffix must be used in the receipt when available, and should be 

perpetuated to the MRA (See DLM 4000.25 extract below). Navy will take an action to address 

ADC 247 at their next Supply Council Meeting. Action Item remains open.

DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, Chapter 10, paragraph “C10.2.6. Acknowledgement of Split or 

Partial Shipments. When a shipped line item (requisition document number and suffix 

code) is consigned as a split or partial shipment, submit an MRA, for the shipment 

segments as they are received. The split or partial shipment codes are part of the 

transportation control number (TCN) structure in accordance with DTR 4500.9-R, DoD 

Transportation Regulation”. Accordingly, reporting activities will include the TCN in the 

MRA transaction when it is available. If the total quantity for the shipped line item is not 

received by the due-in date, report the missing quantity, citing Discrepancy Indicator Code 

F, in accordance with the guidance in the MRA transaction.”

(9) SPRC 13-03, Action Item 14. Air Force noted that the implementation status to 

eliminate the MRA workaround process on the retail side is scheduled for August 2016 with the 

rest of the Air Force intransit requirement package. Air Force will provide the updated ADC 247 

implement status for the wholesale side and provide the change number for both sides. DLMSO 

took an internal action item to ensure the DLMS Status Review is updated for ADC 247 as the 

Components provide system change numbers and related implementation info. 

See updated Action Item 14 (USAF) and 26 (DLMSO).

(10) SPRC 13-03, Action Item 15. The Marine Corps is working to provide an 

implementation schedule for ADC 247 and will advise. 

(11) SPRC 13-03, Action Item 16. DLA is looking for additional financial 

justification to assign a higher priority to their implementation of ADC 247 which is assigned 

under RFC# BOF-C15-0020. The DLA implementation of ADC 247 has not gone forward to the 

alignment group and DLA has been unable to identify a financial justification to support ADC 

247. DLA questioned when the Services would implement ADC 247 in their systems, and 

should DLA implementation wait until then. DLA needs to be able to track partial shipments

based on Services providing the TCN per ADC 247, if the full quantity shipped is not 

acknowledged. DLMSO noted that DLA should not be dependent on the Services for their own 

implementation.

Mr. Pete Talamonti, Air Force support contractor for AFMC/HAIR, asked if the Follow-up for 

Delinquent MRA (Legacy DIC DRF) will be done by TCN. Ms. Johnson noted that legacy DIC 

DRF (Follow-up for Delinquent MRA) requires the shipment unit number (shipment unit number 

to be interpreted as TCN). The requirement was not added by ADC 247; it was an existing 

legacy DRF requirement. The TCN is also identified as required in the corresponding DLMS 

527R Follow-up for Delinquent MRA. 

The Army commented that they only retain the last received TCN. The TCN would be on the 

shipment status, and the receipt would be done on the lower level TCN. Army would have an 

issue if a non-receipt situation arose. Ms. Daverede commented that it sounds like the Army 

does not track the partialed TCN and the benefit associated with retaining the partialed shipment 

information will help track what is received and not received. If a shipment was partialed, users 

should be able to address each TCN that was partialed. Both Ms. Hilert and Ms. Johnson noted 
4

the intent of ADC 247 was to put the TCN on the receipt when it is available, and perpetuate to 

the MRA. 

Background: In the legacy DIC DRF, Shipment Unit Number, rp 60 – 76 indicates “Duplicate 

from the MRC or DIC ASH Shipment Status”.1 While this does not specifically state the TCN, 

the TCN is required by Revised Addendum to Approved MILSTRIP Change Letter (AMCL) 

138, dated May 30, 1996. Also, the legacy DIC AR_ Materiel Release Confirmation, rp 60 -76, 

clearly stipulates that this field is the TCN.

New action for DLMSO to review and clarify, as needed, the business rules for TCN on the 

Follow-up for Delinquent MRA (legacy DIC DRF) and the MRA Reply to follow-up.

See Action Item 27

(12) SPRC 13-03, Action Item 17. DLMSO requested the Services feedback on their 

procedures to ensure that the proper suffixes are identified in the MRA transactions to align with 

the suffixes identified in the corresponding shipment status.

(13) SPRC 13-03, Action Item 18. The Marine Corps noted that the support currently 

provided by the contractor logistics support (CLS) RIC LA9 (Oshkosh Truck), is transitioning to 

DLA in the near future and will make this issue obsolete. Marine Corps will provide target date. 

See Action Item 18.

(14) SPRC 13-03, Action Item 19. Navy response on June 16, 2015 noted the two 

examples provided identify that the site/user copied the last transaction they received (AE1 

status) and changed the DIC to DRA. In doing this, the structure/record positions (RP) did not 

match the DRA layout. This was an isolated error with two manually generated transactions and 

does not represent an ongoing programming problem. Action Item is closed.

(15) SPRC 13-03, Action Item 20. GSA was requested to provide an update to the 

results of their internal analysis of why some shipment status transactions are not being sent and 

remedy to be consistent with MILSTRIP procedures.

(16) SPRC 13-03, Action Item 21. Army was requested to provide an update on 

Army-directed shipments that result in MRA transactions with no corresponding shipment status. 

Shipment status and MRA are mandatory if coming from wholesale asset

b. Agenda Topic 2 - MRA Report Overview and Demonstration. Mr. Paul Jensen, 

DLMSO Contractor Support, provided an overview of the MRA requirements to include 

applicability, MRA submission, follow-up, follow-up response timeframes, and exclusions from 

MRA reporting. He also explained the MRA Report criteria used to determine whether an MRA 

was received or not received. Component Supply PRC representatives, or designees, are 

required to analyze the MRA Report on a monthly basis to identify potential deficiencies in their 

Service or Agency MRA procedures that contribute to breakdowns in internal controls for intransit wholesale stock and coordinating corrective action with delinquent/non-reporting 

activities. Three MRA-related ADCs were released in the past year and are available on the 

ADC page of the DLMSO Website www.dla.mil/j-6/dlmso. Formal Change 5 to DLM 4000.25, 

 1 Based on November 1993 implementation of MILSTRIP AMCL 138; otherwise priority is entered in record 

positions 60-61.
5

DLMS, Volume 2, and DLM 4000.25-2, MILSTRAP, were posted to the DLMSO Website 

publication page on June 16, 2015. Formal Change 5 updates the publications with numerous 

ADCs, to include the following related to MRA. Formal Change 1 to DLM 4000.25-4, Defense 

Automatic Addressing System (DAAS) was also published and incorporated the MRA ADCs.

• ADC 1086 – Create New MRA Source of Supply Report, Create Requisition/Initial 

Supply Transaction Download File and Eliminate Shipment Discrepancy Report by 

Depot.

• ADC 1087 – Revise MRA Report Selection Criteria to Reflect the MRA Process 

Exclusion for Receipt Transaction Reporting.

• ADC 1088 – Joint Supply/Logistics Metrics Analysis Reporting System (LMARS) 

Changes to the MRA Report Criteria and Documentation of MRA Report Business 

Rules.

Mr. Jensen briefly described the eleven MRA Reports, including the three new Source of Supply 

MRA Reports established by ADC 1086, and then used the on-line Transaction Services MRA 

Reports tool to demonstrate the reports. The demonstration included a typical MRA Stock 

Shipment scenario and several scenarios using the new MRA Source of Supply (Stock) report to 

show how MRA reports can be viewed from the perspective of the source of supply. 

Additionally the new ADC 1086 MRA Report download data capability was demonstrated and 

the following items were specifically noted:

• Emphasis on downloading the report regularly. The report is stored for 12 months, 

but detailed transaction history data is only available for 2 months.

• Initial Transaction column identifies the first relevant transaction available to DLA 

Transaction Services which may not always be the requisition.

• The Communications Routing Identifier (COMMRI) data was requested in the 

download file by the Army to help pinpoint issues from a particular system. 

COMMRI data will begin to populate after the MRA Report changes go into 

production starting with the June 2015 data as the MRA Reports cannot backfill the 

transaction history to obtain the COMMRI values. The three COMMRIs identified 

are:

1. System originating the requisition (A0_, AT_, AM_ or other initial supply 

transaction

2. DoDAAC in the document number

3. Where the Follow-up for Delinquent MRA transaction was sent

The following discussion was captured during the MRA Report Overview and Demonstration: 

• Shipment status triggers the MRA process.

• DLA Transaction Services is working to address security issues with getting the Logistics 

Data Gateway (LDG) to be Common Access Card (CAC) enabled. Once this is resolved, 

then a future capability may be to put a link in WebVLIPS to take users to LDG for a 

more comprehensive review of transaction history.

• There is no enterprise level requirement to capture D-series (MILSTRAP) transactions 

other than DICs DRA, DRB, and DRF in WebVLIPS. Ms. Mary Maurer, DLA 
6

Transaction Services contractor support, noted that there are Service-specific exceptions 

for other D-series transactions that are made available in WebVLIPS. 

• During the MRA demonstration of the drill down link for WebVLIPS in the Stock 

Shipment Summary Report, MRA Not Received, Ms. Hilert asked about keeping history 

beyond the two months that show in the drill down data in WebVLIPS. Ms. Hilert did 

qualify the question as primarily related to using WebVLIPS data for SDR research and 

asked for additional time greater than two months for historical data. Ms. Maurer noted 

that WebVLIPS was never designed to retain a long history (retaining lots of old data 

creates a performance issue) and the production system is currently set for two months.

Additionally the number of records in history was increased from 35 to 50. Additionally 

the purge date on all shipments was increased to 7 months past shipment receipt for SDR 

and all DRA/DRB data for is held for an additional 90 days after receipt by the customer. 

LDG does contain a greater range on historical data for the transaction history.

• Mr. Alexander (Archie) Morton, DLA J313M, commented on the new MRA by Source 

of Supply Report and asked about the view from DLA being just SMS and not by DLA 

supply chain. DLMSO noted this was just for the MRA perspective and the DLA 

requirement specifically noted it should be from SMS and not a view split out by DLA 

Supply Chains. Ms. Maurer noted that DLA Transaction Services used to publish a set of 

special reports for DLA called “Supply Chain Reports” but DLA cancelled the 

requirement. This report was unrelated to the MRA Reports. Mr. Morton was referred to 

Ms. Elaine Applegate, DLA Supply PRC representative, if he wanted to pursue the topic 

further.

• ADC 1087 (Ms. Hilert and Ms. Johnson). Army and Navy are not compliant with the

process to follow-up for delinquent MRA, so Army and Navy are currently excluded

from ADC 1087 implementation. Under ADC 1087, if an ICP does not follow-up for an 

MRA because their intra-Component business process requires submission of a Receipt 

transaction rather than an MRA, then that document number will not show up on the No 

MRA report. Army and Navy must be excluded from ADC 1087 until such time as they 

fully implement the Follow-up for Delinquent MRA process.

Subsequent to the Supply PRC Meeting, DLA completed their review the new SoS MRA 

Reports in the Logistics Reports test region and DLA Transaction Services put the changes into 

the Logistics Reports production system.

c. Agenda Topic 3 - Service Briefings on known Gaps in their MRA System Processes. 

The following input was received from the Services noted:

• Army – Working on identifying gaps

• Navy – Working on identifying gaps

• Marine Corps – Working on identifying gaps

• Air Force – Asserts that they do not have any MRA gaps

• DLA – See Topic 4

Ms. Hilert noted that there is DASD (DPAP) interest in implementing ADC 390 which adds the 

contract number/call order number for GFP receipts. ADC 390 revised the DLMS 527R MRA 

and receipt functions to require the DOD contract number for transactions associated with 

government furnished materiel (GFM), and for MRAs associated with contractor furnished 

materiel (CFM). DLMSO is looking for implementation status of ADC 390 as the receipt 
7

provides a good vehicle to update the GFP module of the Item Unique Identification (IUID) 

Registry. It is understood that DLA has completed the Enterprise Business Systems (EBS)

programming to address ADC 390 requirements; however, it is not clear that the requirement has 

been incorporated in contracts and incorporation in all variations of FEDMALL MRA reporting 

must be confirmed. Input from the Services is required on their logistics systems ability to 

send/receive contract data for GFP on the receipt/MRA regardless of whether the receipt is done 

by the Management Control Activity (MCA), or a contractor system such as commercial asset 

visibility (CAV). See Action Item 28

d. Agenda Topic 4 - DLA Briefing on known MRA Gaps. Mr. Mark Lieberman, DLA 

J341, provided a summary of the DLA MRA gaps that included: 

• Medical and Subsistence Prime Vendor programs are now doing MRAs (527R).

• Maintenance Repair & Operations (MRO) Program uses a tailored vendor relationship 

(TVR) type system that did not require an MRA via EDI when it was developed. DLA is 

working on an MRA solution using the 527R that will meet Financial Improvement and 

Audit Readiness (FIAR) requirements.

• Industrial Prime Vendor (IPV) Army and Air Force bin fill operations differ and DLA is

working on draft PDC 1168 to develop a new DLMS 527R Source of Supply Delivery 

Acknowledgement (SDA) transaction in lieu of the MRA.

• Kentucky Logistics Center (KYLOC) is working to get shipment status from storage 

locations to enable DLA Transaction Services recognition of MRA applicability.

• ADC 199 – DLA is still looking for a method to address the requirement for an original 

document number (ODN) as the unique reference for each line under a single document 

number in a TVR scenario. See additional discussion in Topic 5 which addressees draft 

PDC 1170.

Ms. Daverede noted she is working with DLA J3 on a PDC to implement the authority code for 

some of these processes where the Services systems check up front whether the DoD activity 

address code (DoDAAC) is authorized to requisition, to act as a bill-to, or to act as a ship-to. 

Mr. Bob Hammond, DLMSO, Finance Process Review Committee Chair, noted the need to 

validate the fund code up front as well. Mr. Hammond commented that it is in the best interest 

of the provider to validate the authority code for the DoDAAC being used to help prevent 

unauthorized requisitions. Ms. Hilert noted that the DLA SMOK process could be modified to 

do the funds verification, which includes the DoDAAC authority code funds verification process

as the intent is to do this systemically rather than using a manual process.

e. Agenda Topic 5 - Draft PDC 1170, Clarify DOD Military Standard Billing System 

Requirement for Detail Document Number in MRA for Tailored Vendor Relationship 

(TVR). Ms. Johnson provided the background for ADC 199 , which allowed use of a contract 

number, call number and delivery order line item numbers with TVR MRA. She noted that 

DOD Interfund billing requirement for the TVR process was not addressed in ADC 199. DLA 

was to provide DLMSO with a DLMS, Volume 2 (Supply Standards and Procedures), chapter

for the TVR process; however in the absence of a TVR chapter being provided, draft PDC 1170 

updates the DLMS MRA chapter to address the billing requirement. PDC 1170 will clarify in 

DLMS Volume 2 and Volume 4 (Military Standard Billing System - Finance), the requirement to 

use individual document numbers with TVR MRA, in addition to the contract, call and delivery 

order line item numbers. The bottom line is to ensure the document number in the MRA 
8

matches the document number in the order, by line item. This supports the existing DLMS 

Volume 4 requirements. Mr. Hammond emphasized that in processes, such as TVR, where 

orders are initiated outside of a Component’s ordering systems, a mechanism is lacking to pass 

the obligation for each requisition to the Components’ financial systems in order to clear detail 

Interfund bulls at the line item level. In such cases, detailed bills may be “rolled up” into a 

single detail bill for multiple line items, which is not only an incorrect procedure, it inhibits the 

ability to perform a three way match between the obligation/order, receipt and bill and is a 

serious audit readiness issue for Components.

MILSBILLS states that:

C2.1.7. Obligations for Requisitioned Materiel. Establishing an obligation for the 

proper amount under the requisition document number is essential for the timely 

and automated processing of interfund bills. Failure to do so is a violation of financial 

management procedures and may delay processing and increase workload for both 

DFAS and submitting Component personnel. DoD Components that either (1) 

establish business processes for requisitioning outside their customer’s Component 

sponsored supply system, (e.g., via internet ordering applications), or (2) authorize 

their own Component personnel to satisfy requirements through the use of external 

ordering processes, will support adherence to standard DoD financial business 

processes.

The preferred approach for passing obligation data from the source of supply to the Components’ 

financial systems is the funds verification process developed initially for DOD EMALL and 

GSA Advantage that is addressed in MILSBILLS, Chapter 7. But, this process has currently 

only been implemented to Army and is not feasible for all business processes. Accordingly, a 

new DLMS 821 Financial Reporting Implementation Convention (IC) is being explored to 

provide a capability to pass obligation data from the source of supply to the Components’

financial provide systems, including Standard Line of Accounting data elements. Once 

developed, the DLMS 821 procedures would be staffed as a PDC through finance, supply and 

other functional areas.

Mr. Chester Dabrowski, DLA Troop Support asked if planned enhancements for ensuring 

obligations are established assumes that we are getting unique document numbers on the 

customer orders? Mr. Hammond noted that in some cases the source of supply (e.g. DLA, 

GSA) would be creating unique document numbers on behalf of the Components, as is done in 

various business processes today.

f. Agenda Topic 6 - DLA MRA Exclusion for Immediate Issue Scenarios. Mr. Steve 

Loper, DLA is considering drafting a PDC to document an MRA exclusion for “Immediate 

Issue” scenarios (e.g., bearer walk-through or “over the counter” issues) where shipment 

status/materiel release confirmation is provided and an MRA would typically be expected.
9

g. Agenda Topic 7 - DRAFT PDC 1114 Change in timing to Follow-up for Delinquent 

MRA and for MRA Submission Based on Time Definite Delivery (TDD) Standards. 

Mr. Steve Loper, DLA introduced the draft PDC 1114 and Ms. Daverede provided a briefing to 

explain how the TDD standards were used to identify proposed changes in MRA submission and 

follow-up timing. A key driver in this proposed change is that DLA, in their attempt to closeout 

receipts, is receiving less than 70 percent of MRAs for DVD materiel within 30 days and 

receiving less than 70 percent of Class II, IV and IX MRAs up to five months after shipment. 

The basis of DLA’s concern is DODM 4140.01, Volume 5, Item Accountability and Control 

Policy for Materiel In-Transit, which states:

“The owning DoD Component directing materiel into an in-transit status will retain 

accountability within their logistics records for that materiel (to include resolution of 

shipping and other discrepancies) until the consignee or receiving activity formally 

acknowledges receipt.”

In draft PDC 1114, DLA proposes an automated follow-up for delinquent MRA transactions at a 

number of days beyond shipment that is aligned with the TDD standards. 

DLA’s proposed MRA follow-up timeframes, call for revised MRA submission timeframes that 

also consider TDD. Components should review draft PDC 1114, and the related DLMSO 

briefing, for a better understanding of how the revised MRA submission and follow-up time 

frames based on TDD were derived. The end result was: 

• CONUS (NORTHCOM). For a more consistent and reasonable MRA approach based on 

the narrow time difference for the three transportation categories in CONUS 

(NORTHCOM), the MRA timeframe for reporting non-receipt was revised to 12 days for 

all three transportation categories. For the MRA follow-up, three days were added to 

arrive at the CONUS Follow-up for Delinquent MRA timeframe of 15 days. The extra 

three days were added to allow time for processing a non-receipt MRA. 

• OCONUS. The MRA timeframe for reporting non-receipt was revised to 26 days for 

both transportation category (TC) 1 and TC 2, and 76 days for TC 3. For the MRA 

follow-up, four days were added to arrive at the Follow-up for Delinquent MRA 

timeframe of 30 days for TC 1 and 2, and 80 days for TC3. The extra four days were 

added to allow time for processing a non-receipt MRA.

Benefits: The intent of this proposed change is for the customers and ICPs to execute the MRA 

process in a more timely, realistic manner, by factoring in the various TDD standards established 

by the United States Transportation Command in coordination with the Combatant Commanders 

that are used to optimize the overall supply chain. Aligning the follow-up timeframe with TDD 

timeframes will provide a more realistic MRA submission and follow-up timeframe based on 

negotiated TDD standards for when materiel should be received within a specific theatre. Based 

on the new follow-up timeframes, associated to TDD, ICPs should receive MRAs in a timelier 

manner in both CONUS and OCONUS, thus assisting DoD in avoiding additional costs (interest 

penalties). 

On July 15, 20015, DLA concurred with the Draft of PDC 1114 that was provided by DLMSO 

prior to Supply PRC 15-02. DLMSO will finalize and staff PDC 1114 with the Supply PRC. 

See Action Item 29.
10

h. Agenda Topic 8 - DRAFT PDC 1168 (under development) New Source of Supply 

(SOS) Delivery Acknowledgement Transaction for Industrial Product-Support Prime 

Vendor (IPV) Program. PDC 1168 will document a new DLMS 527R SoS Delivery 

Acknowledgement (SDA) transaction to support DLA’s Industrial Product-Support Vendor 

(IPV) program. DLA will use the new SDA transaction for posting goods receipt against 

wholesale materiel provided to retail customers, similar to the manner on which the DLA uses 

MRA transactions. Under DLA’s IPV programs, the Military Services position is that the 

materiel is expensed when the bins (bench stock) are filled, and, therefore, the Services do not 

need to process a Receipt transaction to post the assets on their accountable property record. 

Since the Services are not processing a receipt, the Services also do not submit MRAs. The 

Services own the expensed materiel in the bin, but never record the materiel on their accountable 

record. Since there is no MRA transaction to document the receipt of wholesale materiel under 

the IPV program, DLA is developing new procedures to obtain the missing receipt 

acknowledgement by enabling DLA personnel to input an SDA via FEDMALL, based upon 

supporting shipping documentation and random sampling.

DLMSO will ensure that Ms. Jan Mulligan and Mr. Bob Carroll, ODASD(SCI) are notified 

when PDC 1168 is released for Component review/input as there is a possible policy gap under 

this process where the Services are billed for materiel that is never put on their accountable 

property record. 

Several comments were made relative to this topic: 

• Ms. Hilert noted that from the ODASD(SCI) perspective there are some policy concerns. 

When DLA took over the Service support they removed some of the existing procedures. In 

the IPV programs the bin (bench stock) replacement materiel is never picked up on the 

Services record. Ms. Hilert noted that prior to the implementation of the IPV programs, the 

Services initially had the bin replacement type materiel on their records and expensed the 

materiel when it was put in the bin. Under the new process, the contractor is delivering 

material for bin replacement and the materiel is never on the Service’s record but the Service 

is billed. 

• DLMSO has concerns for the overarching program and while the proposed process will be an 

improvement, there is still concern that there is no DoD level policy to support the revised 

business process. Ms. Daverede highlighted the materiel sampling controls that are being put 

into place with the IPV program and that there is an ongoing effort to address the related 

financial obligation piece of this process. Between DLA and the affected Services, a 

concerted effort is being made to improve processing and document the shared responsibility 

for the materiel accountability and the obligation on the finance side. 

i. Agenda Topic 9 - Draft PDC 1089, Create Help Screens for MRA Report. This PDC 

is under development and is targeted for release in the first quarter of fiscal year 2016. DLMSO 

will draft either a PDC or administrative ADC for help screens for the on-line MRA Reports that 

will help users navigate the MRA Reports and:

1) explain the report options, 

2) explain the report selection criteria, and 

3) explain the data portrayed in the report. 

See Action Item 30.
11

j. Agenda Topic 10 - MRA Exclusion for the Army and Air Force Exchange Service 

(Exchange). Ms. Johnson, briefed the background on this topic and DLMSO facilitated the 

follow-on discussion with the Supply PRC members and several individuals from DLA Troop 

Support who support the Exchange. Following an extensive review of the MRA Business Rules 

(including MRA exceptions) when developing ADC 1088, DLMSO recommended that DOD 

reconsider the MRA exclusion for the Exchange.

Current DLMSO Position – The policy in the DoDM 4140.01, DoD Supply Chain Materiel 

Management Procedures, February 10, 2014, Volume 5 – Delivery of Materiel, Enclosure 3, 

Paragraphs 8.a(3) and 8.b(5) requires processing of MRAs for receipt of all shipments of DOD 

wholesale materiel, whether requisitioned (pulled) or pushed to them, from any supply source, 

(e.g., issues from stock; or direct or prime vendor deliveries). MRA is emerging as a tool to 

support Audit Readiness, and is receiving focused attention from OSD, DLA and the Services. 

After reviewing the basis for the original exclusion, DLMSO questioned the rational for the 1988 

MRA exemption and recommended that DOD reconsider this exclusion. An exemption based on 

the type of funding used by the Exchange does not seem to justify an exclusion from the MRA 

process. Further, the Exchange should not be treated as a non-DoD government agency. MRAs 

are under a great deal of scrutiny in DLA’s Audit Readiness initiative and serve as evidentiary 

matter. 

In-Transit Accountability Policy and Transporter Proof of Deliver impact on the 

Exchange – This topic morphed into a broader discussion of in-transit accountability policy and 

transporter proof of delivery as related to the Exchange scenario with significant input provided 

by DLA Troop Support participants. 

In Ms. Johnson’s briefing, slide 4 raised the question whether the Exchange MRA exclusion is 

still valid. The discussion highlighted the new in-transit accountability policy in DODM 

4140.01, Volume 5, which mandates the seller maintain property accountability for in-transit 

materiel until the receipt of materiel is acknowledged. The DLA Troop Support Comptroller, 

Ms. Mary Anne Gardio, favors removing the exclusion based on accounting policy guidance 

from July 8, 2013 that requires customers post goods receipt. She noted the change in DLA 

policy to implement the defacto receipt that will automatically post the goods receipt from the 

customer 180 days after they receive the goods if an official receipt/receipt acknowledgment is 

not posted. This policy was based on the transporter proof of delivery (TPD). Ms. Ellen Hilert, 

DLMSO, noted that this process is not documented under the DLMS and that DLMSO expressed 

strong concerns when the topic of TPD and defacto receipt were first discussed. Mr. Carroll 

noted that all aspects of this need to be looked at. 

Ms. Daverede noted that the scenario with the defacto receipt, if approved, needs something in 

OSD policy that authorizes it and limits the scope. This would give DLA top cover and support

drafting a PDC to incorporate specific procedures in the Defense Logistics Manuals. The 

following points were made during the discussion of the DLA goods receipt policy: 

• Mr. Loper noted this was a relatively tight policy that applied to a restricted population. 

Mr. Jim Weiner, DLA Distribution, noted the system change was not completed and said 

it was only for customer direct sales orders. Mr. Loper noted more specifically it was 

only those orders that are destination inspection and destination acceptance and over 

$10,000. Ms. Gardio asked whether the Exchange was going to be excluded from this

policy because in the draft policy she reviewed, there was an exclusion for the Exchange. 
12

DLMSO noted that any exclusion was likely based on the current MRA procedures 

which excluded the Exchange.

• If a decision is made to remove the MRA exemption, a PDC will be staffed, and the 

implementation date will be a mutually agreed upon date such as the 2019 DLMS 

compliance date, the Exchange DLMS modernization date, or other date to be published 

in the ADC.

• Mr. Gary Colello, DLA Troop Support, Director of Customer Operations (C&T) asked 

whether the existing policy now shows a requirement that would remove the exception 

based on Audit Readiness (FIAR) and other policy. Mr. Colello felt the policy supports 

MRA, and DLA needs to go back to the Exchange and tell them that they need to be 

compliant and find a way to process the MRA. 

Subsequent to the Supply PRC Meeting, Ms. Gardio forwarded a copy of an email from Mr. 

Tony Poleo, (DLA Finance) to the HQ Executive Board Principals on November 10, 2013 

regarding the TPD policy discussion with OSD. 

“Transporter Proof of Delivery (TPD) ... Ms. Reba, along Mr. Hobby and Mr. Beebe, 

met with Mr. Ginman [DPAP] and Mr. Peters [L&MR] regarding DLA proposal to 

incorporate TPD as a "de-facto" receipt when the customer does not provide materiel 

receipt acceptance. They approved concept and indicated we should move out while 

they address any associated policy changes. We'll discuss this concept in more detail at 

the next AR update on December 6th.”

See Action Items 31, 32, 33 and 34. 

DLMS 856 Shipment Status and the EXCHANGE Migration to DLMS and Requisition 

Closeout – Mr. Colello noted the Exchange has 180 clothing stores with about 300,000 

requisitions per year and the MRA could be a tremendous burden as some of the stores are

lightly staffed and many of the orders are for single items because the store may not carry a wide 

range of items due to space limitations. Ms. Hilert noted that the Exchange asked DLA to 

provide shipment status and resulted in the DLMS 856S Shipment Status being mapped into a 

format the Exchange could accept in their modernized system. This should pave the way to pick 

up the data in the MRA. 

Mr. Carroll summarized that it appears there are multiple options to consider as a better 

understanding is gained regarding the review of the current/future architecture and options 

presented. The environment has changed, with the 180 day, "defacto receipt” and the new 

intransit accountability procedures, and we have to sort out all the pieces and determine whether 

additional DODM 4140.01 policy needs to be updated. See Action Items 35, 36 and 37.

k. Agenda Topic 11 - Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the MRA Exclusion for Shipments to 

Federal Agency Activities. FAA follows MILSTRIP guidance, so it logically follows that DOD 

customers should be generating MRAs to FAA. While FAA is modernizing to DLMS, will it be 

feasible to have FAA address MRA requirements in their modernized system? Mr. Ken Hatchel, 

FAA Supply PRC representative, noted the FAA’s Logistics Center Support System (LCSS) is 

experiencing difficulty in coming online. LCSS is having some issues and a projected 

implementation data is not currently available. The FAA does not currently track out going 

shipments. Ms. Hilert asked whether the FAA ordering sites receipt materiel, and if receiving is 

centralized making it possible for FAA to submit the MRA as a by-product of the receipt 
13

process. The FAA system does not accept an MRA today, but he felt the FAA should accept 

MRAs from the Services when the FAA is acting as a source of supply. On the customer side, 

the FAA does not generate MRAs, but he thought that they should. If DLMSO were to submit a 

draft PDC for FAA to review, Mr. Hatchel would forward it to the LCSS team for review and 

comment. The existing DOD policy indicates MRA is required for shipments out of DoD 

wholesale stock and would need to be modified to include GSA, FAA (and possibly others). Ms. 

Hilert noted that while we have had contact with FAA, we have not been able to contact NOAA 

to determine their position on the MRA issue. The key point made in the MRA discussions is, if 

FAA activities are authorized to requisition materiel from DOD sources, they should be required 

to submit an MRA. See Action Items 38, 39 and 40.

l. Agenda Topic 12 - USMC Receipt and TDD Timeframes (USMC issue with 5-day 

receipt vs TDD). In response to PDC 1124, which aligned the MILSTRAP/DLMS wholesale 

receipt processing timeframes with the DODM 4140.01, Volume 5, policy requirement that 

receiving activities will record receipts no later than 5 business days from date materiel received, 

Marine Corps questioned how the 5-day timeframe related to the TDD standards, which are also 

addressed by DODM 4140.01.

Marine Corps concern was the appearance of a conflict between the TDD standards and DODM 

4140.01, Volume 5, 5-day timeframe for recording receipt since the TDD standards do not allow 

the 5-days for processing receipt. Ms. Daverede noted that while OCONUS TDD standards did 

not specify a receipt take-up timeframe, the CONUS TDD standard did specify receipt take-up 

timeframes as short as 1-2 days. The CONUS TDD standards for 1-2 days receipt take-up 

timeframe appear to conflict with 5-days allowed for receiving activities to process a receipt. 

Clarification is needed regarding the maximum timeframe to process a receipt, as it related to 

TDD. Ms. Johnson noted that the PDC 1124 alignment of MILSTRAP/DLMS wholesale receipt 

processing timeframe with the DODM 4140.01, Volume 5, policy would move forward as it was 

a necessary update to support existing DOD policy. Mr. Carroll offered to review DODM 

4140.01 from a policy harmonization perspective. See Action Item 41.

Subsequent to the Supply PRC 15-2 Meeting, a meeting was held on July 13, 2015 that included 

ODASD(SCI), DLMSO and Marine Corps to discuss this issue. Ms. Hilert provided input to 

ODASD(SCI); the concept for the DoDM 4140.01 update is to leave current wording as is, but 

include an additional sentence for cross-reference to TDD, thus retaining the emphasis on timely 

processing imposed by TDD and clarifying that the 5 day maximum may not be the goal for all 

types of shipments. The suggested clarification would read something like this: “Record 

receipts no later than 5 business days from date materiel received. More expeditious receipt 

processing may be required under negotiated TDD standards.”

Next Meeting: The DLMSO committee chairs thanked all attendees for their participation, 

enthusiasm and continued support. The next Supply PRC meeting date has not been set.
14

_____________________ ______________________

MARY JANE JOHNSON ELLEN HILERT

Supply PRC Co-Chair Supply PRC Co-Chair

____________________

HEIDI DAVEREDE

Supply PRC Co-Chair

Approved:____________________

DONALD C. PIPP

Director

Defense Logistics Management 

Standards Office

Enclosure
Action Item Tracker – MRA Focus Supply PRC Meeting 13-3 (September 19, 2013) and 15-02 (June 24, 2015)

Current as of August 5, 2015 

Page 1 of 14

No Reference Action Item Responsibility Target 

Due Date

Status Notes

1 Minutes

§ b.(4)

Page 3

Navy provide additional information if there is a 

specific MRA Report requirement relating to 

part numbers.

Navy 30 Jan 2014

19 SEP 2014

Closed 8/20/2/14 – No additional input. The 

Defense Logistics Management 

Standards Office (DLMSO) will 

close Action Item if no input by 

9/19/2014.

11/10/14-DLMSO closed Action 

Item; no additional Navy input was 

received.

2 Minutes

§ c.(3)

Page 4

DLA Transaction Services review requirement 

for adding the three data pattern COMMRIs and 

identify any issues with the requirement.

DLA Transaction 

Services

18 Nov 2013 Closed 10/11/13 – Initial response from 

DLA Transaction Services indicates 

the three data pattern COMMRIs 

are feasible. Multiple 

issues/questions raised that will be 

addressed in PDC 1086.

6/18/2014 – DLMSO released ADC 

1086.

3 Minutes

§ d

Page 5

Supply PRC representatives to review the 

examples of the receipt scenario cited for each 

Component in draft PDC 1087, and provide 

language to include in PDC for their 

Component. 

All Supply PRC 

Representatives 

12 Nov 2013 Closed 11/5/13 – DLMSO followed up for

responses.

11/12/13 – Interim Navy explanation 

of MRA & Navy ERP.

11/17/13 - Army provided response. 

1/7/14 - PDC 1087 released for 30 

day staffing.

6/12/2014 – DLMSO released ADC 

1087.
Action Item Tracker – MRA Focus Supply PRC Meeting 13-3 (September 19, 2013) and 15-02 (June 24, 2015)

Current as of August 5, 2015 

Page 2 of 14

No Reference Action Item Responsibility Target 

Due Date

Status Notes

4 Minutes

§ d

Page 5

Identify if your Component is compliant in 

generating MRA follow-ups under MILSTRAP 

rules, and if not, provide the anticipated timeline 

for implementation.

Army

Air Force

Marine Corps

Provide in 

response to 

PDC 1087

Closed 11/12/13 – Navy Response: Navy 

not sending follow-ups for 

delinquent MRA.

12/20/13 – DLA Response: DLA is

compliant with MRA follow-up 

process.

6/12/14 – Army confirmed not 

sending follow-ups for delinquent 

MRA. Pending corrected logic in 

LMP

3/14/14 – Air Force response 

confirmed they are compliant with 

MRA follow-up process using 

MILSTRAP legacy DIC DRF

2/11/14 – Marine Corps response 

confirmed they are compliant with 

MRA follow-up process

6/12/2014 – DLMSO released ADC 

1087. 

5 Minutes

§ h

Page 6

Air Force and Navy Supply PRC 

representatives provide input on the pending 

questions identified on the MRA Report 

business rules decision tree.

Air Force

Navy

30 Jan 2014

22 Jan 2014

Closed 12/4/13 – Received Air Force 

Response. 

1/10/14 – DLMSO response to Air 

Force for clarification of several Air 

Force responses.

1/28/2014 – Received Air Force 

clarification

1/10/14 – DLMSO follow-up on the 

9/10/13 response DLMSO set to 

Navy to clarify the Navy MRA 

questions.

1/30/2014 and 1/31/2014 –

Received Navy response/ 

clarification
Action Item Tracker – MRA Focus Supply PRC Meeting 13-3 (September 19, 2013) and 15-02 (June 24, 2015)

Current as of August 5, 2015 

Page 3 of 14

No Reference Action Item Responsibility Target 

Due Date

Status Notes

6 Minutes

§ i

Page 7

DLA provide a periodic update to DLMSO 

regarding the status of implementing an MRA 

solution for the processes identified in this 

section addressing known MRA gaps.

DLA Ongoing Open 8/21/14 – DLA noted that as of April 

2014, EMALL uses the 527R,

instead of the incorrect 861, for the 

MRA transaction. The MRO 

program is an ongoing major effort 

by DLA to get it to comply with 

various Audit areas, one of which is 

MRA. Until MRO is complete, 

Medical or Subsistence probably will 

not get touched. IPV is another 

audit focus area that is ongoing, 

with that program looking for options 

for MRA generation in light of the 

fact that the Army does not submit 

requisitions, nor receive due-ins, 

and thus cannot generate 

receipts/MRAs for these items. The 

KYLOC gap is not recognized as an 

audit-related impact and thus will 

not get worked anytime in the near 

future.
Action Item Tracker – MRA Focus Supply PRC Meeting 13-3 (September 19, 2013) and 15-02 (June 24, 2015)

Current as of August 5, 2015 

Page 4 of 14

No Reference Action Item Responsibility Target 

Due Date

Status Notes

7 Minutes

§ j

Page 7

Navy update the status of known MRA gaps. Navy Ongoing Open 6/16/15 – Navy identified a new 

MRA gap. When an out-of-scope 

(external to Navy ERP) customer 

orders a DLA-managed item (9 

COG) which is sourced from Navy 

assets (via RRAM, NAS or colocated DD), DAAS logic cannot 

determine which type of activity 

issued the material and therefore 

sends the MRA to DLA (source of 

supply), which did not issue the 

material. When this occurs, the 

shipping activity does not have a 

record of the MRA and will continue 

to send follow-up transactions. Next 

step is to consult R-Supply and 

DAAS SMEs to assess the 

possibility of removing the DAAS 

logic.

8 Minutes

§ j 

Page 7

Navy research and confirm whether the Navy 

Single Supply Baseline initiative will fix the MRA 

gaps that exist with R-Supply.

Navy 30 Jan 2014

19 Sep 2014

10 Dec 2014

Closed 6/16/15 – The Naval Operational 

Supply System (NOSS), which is a 

component of Navy Operational 

Business Logistics Enterprise 

(NOBLE) (formerly Navy Single 

Supply Baseline), will fix the known 

gap by including the capability to 

release MRA actions automatically. 

Planned implementation by FY20.
Action Item Tracker – MRA Focus Supply PRC Meeting 13-3 (September 19, 2013) and 15-02 (June 24, 2015)

Current as of August 5, 2015 

Page 5 of 14

No Reference Action Item Responsibility Target 

Due Date

Status Notes

9 Minutes

§ j

Page 8

Navy verify if the RIC “XZZ” is a pseudo RIC 

used as a null value in transaction processing.

Navy 30 Jan 2014

19 Sep 2014

10 Dec 2014

Closed 6/3/15 – Navy input noted XZZ is 

not a RIC; it is a Source of Supply 

(SOS) in FLIS. DoD 4100.39-M, 

Volume 6, Section 6.7.8 (Source of 

Supply Inactivation and Deletion) 

describes when XZZ is assigned as 

SOS.

DLMSO Response: Navy input at 

SPRC 13-3 noted, “The rule was 

created in the 2003 time frame 

because RSupply Afloat was having 

problems putting the correct RIC-To 

in their MRA transactions where the 

system was picking up the depot 

RIC vs the ICP RIC. This resulted 

in the ships receiving numerous 

Follow-up for Delinquent MRA 

transactions for the ICPs and

creating a significant manual 

workload.” This may relate to the 

FLIS usage of a pseudo SoS but we 

do not see where the Navy tied the 

two together in their response. Is 

the use of XZZ tied to the FLIS 

documented use of pseudo SOS or 

is it a coincidence that it was used 

by DAAS as part of a workaround 

for R-Supply MRA processing?

6/24/15 – Navy will reevaluate the 

response to this action item after 

reviewing the discussion from 

Supply PRC 13-03. 

See new Action Item 23 for 

Supply PRC 15-2.
Action Item Tracker – MRA Focus Supply PRC Meeting 13-3 (September 19, 2013) and 15-02 (June 24, 2015)

Current as of August 5, 2015 

Page 6 of 14

No Reference Action Item Responsibility Target 

Due Date

Status Notes

10 Minutes

§ j

Page 8

Navy provide an update on their “No MRA 

Required” policy that is programmed into Navy 

ERP, and ensure their procedures are 

consistent with DOD MILSTRAP/DLMS MRA

guidance.

Navy Ongoing Open 11/12/13 – Navy email provided 

interim explanation for absence of 

DOD MRA requirements in Navy 

ERP.

6/16/15 – Navy business rules with 

respect to the use of MRAs have not 

changed. Navy needs to prepare an 

Engineering Change Proposal 

(ECP) to require these transactions. 

Navy will submit a trouble 

ticket/Change Request to require 

these transactions in ERP.

See new Action Item 24 for 

Supply PRC 15-2.

11 Minutes

§ k

Page 8

Army provide a response to identify any known 

MRA gaps and answer the question whether the 

MRA transaction (generating and follow-up) is 

implemented in LMP.

Army 19 Sep 2014

10 Dec 2014

Open 6/12/14 – Army confirmed not 

sending follow-ups for delinquent 

MRA. Pending corrected logic in 

LMP. 

6/24/15. See new Action Item 25

to provide system change 

request number and status.

12 Minutes

§ m

Page 8

Army provide input on implementation of ADC 

247 (Use of TCN in MRA and Receipt 

Transactions).

Army 30 Jan 2014

19 Sep 2014

10 Dec 2014

Open No updates received

13 Minutes

§ m

Page 8

Navy provide timeline for working ADC 247 in to 

Navy ERP (e.g., development of an SCR or a 

scheduled implementation timeline).

Navy 30 Jan 2014

19 Sep 2014

10 Dec 2014

Open 6/16/15 – Navy continues to 

evaluate this action item. A future 

Navy ERP change Request may be 

required.
Action Item Tracker – MRA Focus Supply PRC Meeting 13-3 (September 19, 2013) and 15-02 (June 24, 2015)

Current as of August 5, 2015 

Page 7 of 14

No Reference Action Item Responsibility Target 

Due Date

Status Notes

14 Minutes

§ m

Page 8

Air Force report on implementation status to 

eliminate the workaround process and provide a 

timeline for the retail side (to include in the 

PDC). (Reference ADC 247)

Air Force 30 Jan 2014

19 Sep 2014

10 Dec 2014

Open 12/4/13 – CAV-AF – ADC 247 in 

place waiting for DLMS 

implementation. 

Retail – Tracking requirement but is 

only doing FIAR changes. 

6/23/15 - AF Retail (ILS-S) reply: –

ADC 247 is part of AF In-Transit 

requirement, ILS-S v 4.7.13 

scheduled for release Aug 2016. 

Wholesale – CSRD written for D035 

to do DLMS, no implementation 

date.

6/24/215 – Air Force provide the 

updated ADC 247 implement 

status for the wholesale side and 

provide the change number for 

both wholesale and retail sides

15 Minutes

§ m

Page 8

Marine Corps provide input on implementation 

of ADC 247.

USMC 30 Jan 2014

19 Sep 2014

10 Dec 2014

Open No updates received
Action Item Tracker – MRA Focus Supply PRC Meeting 13-3 (September 19, 2013) and 15-02 (June 24, 2015)

Current as of August 5, 2015 

Page 8 of 14

No Reference Action Item Responsibility Target 

Due Date

Status Notes

16 Minutes

§ m

Page 9

DLA Headquarters provide input on

implementation of ADC 247. 

DLA 30 Jan 2014

10 Dec 2014

Open 1/28/14 – DLA confirmed this is not 

implemented in EBS as intended. 

EBS may recognize TCN as part of 

transaction, but does not use it to 

perform validations/duplication 

checks.

4/17/14 – RFC submitted on 

11/18/14.

3/16/15 – Revised RFC justification 

sent on 3/16/15.

8/21/14 – DLMSO noted if ADC 247 

(add TCN to MRA) was written today, 

it would have been noted as Audit 

Readiness and FIAR impact. Absence 

of the TCN and associated split/partial 

shipment information was a 

procedural and systemic gap in the 

MRA process. One of the reasons for 

ADC 247 was increased use of partial 

shipments in DLA DSS, which 

resulted in considerable DOD 

processing problems when receipt 

and MRA systems/procedures were 

not considering the TCN partial and 

split shipment codes. As multiple 

Shipment Status (AS_) transactions 

are received with the same document 

number/suffix, but different TCNs due 

to partial shipments, when the first 

shipment processes, lack of due-in for 

subsequent shipments could result in 

associated SDRs. There may be a 

similar problem with trans-shipment 

activity split shipments.

6/24/15 – RFC # BOF-C14-0020.
Action Item Tracker – MRA Focus Supply PRC Meeting 13-3 (September 19, 2013) and 15-02 (June 24, 2015)

Current as of August 5, 2015 

Page 9 of 14

No Reference Action Item Responsibility Target 

Due Date

Status Notes

17 Minutes

§ n

Page 9

Services review procedures to ensure that the 

proper suffixes are identified in the MRA 

transactions to align with the suffixes identified 

in the corresponding shipment status. 

All 30 Jan 2014

19 Sep 2014

10 Dec 2014

Open 6/16/15 – When Navy ERP 

generates an outgoing requisition 

(A0_) to DLA, and DLA splits the 

order, Navy ERP should send 

corresponding suffix-coded MRA 

transactions. Navy will submit a 

trouble ticket/Change Request to 

require these transactions in Navy 

ERP.

6/23/15 – AF Retail (ILS-S) reply: 

ILS-S MRA programs generate 

accurate DLMS 527Rs with the 

correct suffix code contingent upon 

base user entering correct value on 

REC input.

18 Minutes

§ n

Page 9

Marine Corps to research why MRA 

transactions are being sent to the RIC – LA9 

(Advanced Military Packaging – MILSTRIP 

Orders, Oshkosh, WI. LA9 is not a valid 

wholesale ICP RIC per LMARS business rules 

and confirmed during the staffing of ADC 1025. 

If LA9 is in fact a wholesale ICP RIC, then

Marine Corps needs to submit PDC to update 

LMARS business rules to reflect that change.

USMC 30 Jan 2014

19 Sep 2014

10 Dec 2014

Open 6/24/15 – LA9 (Oshkosh Truck) is 

transitioning to DLA in the near 

future and will make this issue 

obsolete. Marine Corps will provide 

target date.

19 Minutes

§ n

Page 9

Navy submit a PDC to define and document 

their Service unique data requirement for RP 

77-80 (Service-use field) in the MRA legacy 

transaction (DRA) and clarify the procedures 

being used.

Navy 30 Jan 2014

19 Sep 2014

10 Dec 2014

Closed 6/16/15 – Navy noted they are not 

using this as a Navy unique data 

field and a PDC is not required. The 

two examples provided identify that 

the site/user basically copied the 

last transaction they received (AE1 

status) and changed the DIC to 

DRA. In doing this, the 

structure/card columns did not 

match the DRA layout.
Action Item Tracker – MRA Focus Supply PRC Meeting 13-3 (September 19, 2013) and 15-02 (June 24, 2015)

Current as of August 5, 2015 

Page 10 of 14

No Reference Action Item Responsibility Target 

Due Date

Status Notes

20 Minutes

§ n

Page 10

GSA provide feedback on the results of their 

internal analysis of why some shipment status 

transactions are not being sent and take action 

to correct processing issues where not

consistent with MILSTRIP procedures.

GSA 30 Jan 2014

10 Dec 2014

Open 8/21/14 – GSA did not comment on 

the results on the analysis on the 

100 document numbers, but it 

appears the problem was related to 

issues out of GSA distribution 

centers. GSA is closing their two 

distribution centers by 31 Dec 2014, 

and implementing a DLMS 

compliant Order Management 

System (OMS). The next OMS 

release is planned for July 2015 

which should address this issue. 

21 Minutes

§ n

Page 10

Army research Army-directed shipments that 

result in MRA transactions with no 

corresponding shipment status. (If from 

wholesale assets, both a shipment status and 

MRA are required.)

Army 30 Jan 2014

19 Sep 2014

10 Dec 2014

Open No updates received

Action Items for SPRC 15-02 Start with Number 22

22 Topic 1 Navy identify whether New MRA Gap identified 

in SPRC 13-3, Action Item 7, and the existing 

issue identified in the new Action Item 23 are 

included in the NOSS solution to fix the known 

MRA Gaps.

Additionally clarify the comment in the previous 

response to Action Item 7 relating to RRAM that 

noted “the shipping activity does not have a 

record of the MRA and will continue to send 

follow-up transactions”. Note the “shipping 

activity’ would not send an MRA Follow-up; it 

would come from the ICP. 

Navy 1 Sep 2015 Open
Action Item Tracker – MRA Focus Supply PRC Meeting 13-3 (September 19, 2013) and 15-02 (June 24, 2015)

Current as of August 5, 2015 

Page 11 of 14

No Reference Action Item Responsibility Target 

Due Date

Status Notes

23 Topic 1 DLMSO questioned the initial Navy response to 

SPRC 13-3, Action Item 9 which noted the 

“XZZ is not a RIC; it is a Source of Supply 

(SOS) in FLIS and referenced DoD 4100.39-M, 

Volume 6, Section 6.7.8 (Source of Supply 

Inactivation and Deletion) describes when XZZ 

is assigned as SOS.” 

DLMSO noted that the meeting notes for SPRC 

13-03 indicated the use of XZZ was used by 

DAAS as a workaround for R-Supply MRA 

processing. Is the use of XZZ tied to the FLIS 

documented use of pseudo SOS or is it a 

coincidence that it was used by DAAS as part of 

a workaround for R-Supply MRA processing?

Navy will reevaluate the response to this action 

item after reviewing the discussion from Supply 

PRC 13-03. 

Navy 1 Sep 2015 Open Refer to Action Item 9 and SPRC 

13-03 Minutes paragraph j, page 8 

for additional details. 

24 Topic 1 In SPRC 13-03, Action Item 10, the Navy 

noted a system change request was in the 

works to remove the “No MRA Required” policy 

programmed into their enterprise resource 

planning (ERP) system. The Navy agreed to 

provide an updated Defect Number and HEAT 

number used to document this change and an 

estimated implementation date.

Navy 1 Sep 2015 Open

25 Topic 1 Reference SPRC 13-03, Action Item 11. 

Provide the system change request number and 

status for the LMP system logic to be corrected 

to send the follow-up for a delinquent MRA.

Army 1 Sep 2015 Open

26 Topic 1 Reference SPRC 13-03, Action Item 14. 

DLMSO update the DLMS Status Review for 

ADC 247 when Components provide system 

change numbers and related implementation 

information.

DLMSO Ongoing Open
Action Item Tracker – MRA Focus Supply PRC Meeting 13-3 (September 19, 2013) and 15-02 (June 24, 2015)

Current as of August 5, 2015 

Page 12 of 14

No Reference Action Item Responsibility Target 

Due Date

Status Notes

27 Topic 1 DLMSO will review and clarify, as needed, the 

business rules related to the TCN requirement 

on the Follow-up for Delinquent MRA and the 

MRA Reply to Follow-up.

DLMSO 1 Sep 2015 Open

28 Topic 3 Services provide implementation Status of ADC 

390, specifically whether their logistics systems

are able to send/receive contract data for GFP 

on the receipt/MRA.

Army

Navy 

Air Force

Marine Corps

1 Sep 2015 Open

29 Topic 7 DLMSO will finalize PDC 1114 for staffing with 

the Supply PRC.

DLMSO 30 Sep 2015

30 Topic 9 DLMSO Create Help Screens for the MRA 

Reports.

DLMSO 20 Nov 2015 Open

31 Topic 10 Ms. Mary Anne Gardio, DLA Troop Support 

Comptroller to provide a copy of the July 8, 

2013 Goods Receipt Accounting Policy 

document she referenced that requires all DLA 

customers to post a goods receipt.

DLA Troop 

Support 

Comptroller

Completed. Closed 6/24/15 - DLA Troop Support 

Comptroller provided a copy of the 

July 8, 2013 Goods Receipt 

Accounting Policy document.

32 Topic 10 DLA Troop Support provide documentation 

about how the defacto receipt and how the 

transporter proof of delivery (TPD) was actually 

programmed work in relation to the 

aforementioned July 8, 2013 goods receipt 

accounting policy document.

DLA Troop 

Support

1 Sep 2015 Open

33 Topic 10 ODASD(SCI), Mr. Bob Carroll will identify if any 

OSD action has taken place to address 

associated policy changes related to 

incorporating TPD as a “de-facto” receipt since 

the November 2013 policy discussion between 

ODASD(DPAP) and (L&MR). What are the 

procedures/limitations or defacto receipt and 

role of TPD?

ODASD(SCI) 1 Sep 2015 Open
Action Item Tracker – MRA Focus Supply PRC Meeting 13-3 (September 19, 2013) and 15-02 (June 24, 2015)

Current as of August 5, 2015 

Page 13 of 14

No Reference Action Item Responsibility Target 

Due Date

Status Notes

34 Topic 10 Upon receipt of updated formal OSD TPD policy 

resulting from Action Item 33 and additional 

input from Action Items 31, and 32, DLMSO will 

determine if a PDC is required to incorporate 

specific procedures in the Defense Logistics 

Manuals and draft accordingly.

DLMSO 120 days 

after receipt 

of updated 

OSD policy

Open

35 Topic 10 Ms. Daverede will review her notes to identify 

the contact at NEXCOM who previously worked 

on their initial DLMS implementation effort and 

send the contact information to the Navy Supply 

PRC representative. 

DLMSO 1 Sep 2015 Closed 6/25/15 – Ms. Daverede provided 

the NEXCOM contacts to the Navy 

Supply PRC representatives 

36 Topic 10 DLA Troop Support to identify what the status of 

the re-systemization for the AAFES and 

Exchange, and what is the future system 

architecture for AAFES, Navy Exchange and 

MCX with regards to how they are linked for 

requisitioning, and particularly their plans for 

receipt processing and whether an enterprise or 

decentralized solution is being developed. Also 

identify the where they are on the 

implementation path regarding the DLMS 

transaction discussions over the past few years.

DLA Troop 

Support

1 Sep 2015 Open

37 Topic 10 DLMSO research if documentation can be 

found about the point where the Exchange went 

to ODASD(SCI) and wanted to avoid 

implementing DLMS and Ms. Kathy Smith at 

ODASD(SC) said DLMS compliance applied to 

AAFES. DLMSO will try to find the letter and 

also identify if there is a similar letter from 

ODASD(SCI) on reversal of the DLMS 

mandate.

DLMSO 1 Sep 2015 Open
Action Item Tracker – MRA Focus Supply PRC Meeting 13-3 (September 19, 2013) and 15-02 (June 24, 2015)

Current as of August 5, 2015 

Page 14 of 14

No Reference Action Item Responsibility Target 

Due Date

Status Notes

38 Topic 11 DLMSO to work with DLA Transaction Services 

to identity the transaction volumes for FAA 

(customer and SoS) and NOAA (assume just 

customer)

DLMSO 1 Sep 2015 Open

39 Topic 11 NOAA – DLMSO to research this issue further 

and discuss the MRA requirement NOAA.

DLMSO 1 Sep 2015 Open

40 Topic 11 DLMSO draft PDC to have FAA accept MRAs 

from customers when acting as a Source of 

Supply and to have FAA customers generate an 

MRA to DoD Sources of Supply as a byproduct 

of the receipt process when FAA customer sites 

receive material from DoD Sources of Supply 

additional input from the Action Item

DLMSO 15 Sep 2015 Open

41 Topic 12 ODASD(SCI), Bob Carroll review/address the 

possible conflict between the DoDM 4140.01, 

Volume 5, 5-day receipt processing timeframe,

and the TDD where you have standards less 

than 5 days.

ODASD(SCI) Completed Closed 7/13/15 – Meeting between 

ODASD(SCI), DLMSO and Marine 

Corps to discuss issue. Ms. Ellen 

Hilert provided the following input 

subsequent to the meeting. “The 

concept for the 4140.01 update is to 

leave current wording as is, but 

include an additional sentence for 

cross-reference to TDD thus 

retaining the emphasis on timely 

processing imposed by TDD and 

clarifying that the 5 day maximum 

may not be the goal for all types of 

shipments. The clarification would 

read something like this: “Record 

receipts no later than 5 business 

days from date materiel received. 

More expeditious receipt processing 

may be required under negotiated 

TDD standards.”